A Health Care Reform Day
EmailOver the weekend, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee, announced that pharmaceutical companies had agreed to a deal as part of an overall health care reform package, where the companies will provide, as Baucus put it, "affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," as well as kicking in some money for health care reform efforts.
"The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in December," President Obama said in paper statement released over the weekend. "This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American."
The plans would cut in half the prescription drug expenses of those who fall into the Part D coverage gap, called the doughnut hole, and was heralded by the AARP.
At noon today, President Obama will appear with Barry Rand, the CEO of AARP, to formally announce the $80 billion deal.
But the announcement comes during an awkward time for those pushing for health care reform, with recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office of draft versions of leading Senate health care bills questioning the cost effectiveness of the plans, estimated to cost between $1 and $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
Also today, President Obama will sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which will allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, banning candy flavorings and labels such as ‘low tar’ and ‘light.'
The president is expected to talk about his difficulty in kicking the habit.
-jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Pro-choice women want the government to stay out of their health-care because of privacy rights and so do I.
Posted by: andylancaster | June 22, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
Wait a minute, isn’t AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) basically a very powerful and pressure exerting lobby group? Hmmm…
With regards to the smoking legislation and all of the other nanny state garbage that is coming down the pike,
I am tired of having the presidential equivalent of a helicopter parent in the White House.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | June 22, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am
yes but they are just nice old people who want free stuff. god bless them.
Posted by: andylancaster | June 22, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
“Wait a minute, isn’t AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) basically a very powerful and pressure exerting lobby group? Hmmm”
The difference between them & virually every other “group” in the country is that their members come out in big numbers and VOTE! That si why politicians on both sides of the aisle pay attention to them.
Posted by: Mike_C | June 22, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
Its good they have recognized that they can’t release any kind of “plan” without cost controls and are STARTING to build them into it. Especially since the private insurance industry has shown itself totally incapable of controlling costs.
Now, how about putting a public plan option into it?
As it stands, the Democratic members of the Finance Committee have put together a “plan” that is actually worse than that put together by the insurance companies.
Who runs this congress?
Posted by: Flash Override | June 22, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
Doesn’t the white house site say Oct.?
Where did you get this statement that he wants to sign by Dec?
Karl
Posted by: Karl | June 22, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
I noticed they didn’t report the carve out for unions. Union healthcare plans will be exempt from taxation. In 2 of the 4 Baucus plans non-union members have to pay taxes while unions do not. I do not think that is fair.
I also believe any reform passed should apply to the congress. If the healthcare is good enough for the taxpayers, then it is good enough for the congress. That should also include all federal employees as well.
Posted by: Alan B | June 22, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
Its too bad they refuse to let the CBO score a single payer system. The last time they did so, this is what the CBO said:
“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.
The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan.”
Posted by: Flash Override | June 22, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and demand that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Posted by: jacksmith | June 22, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
This is a key issue for American workers right now. Additionally, encouraging a workplace health program is a great way to lower overall health care costs and to improve employee health. Companies of all sizes can incorporate wellness and prevention into the workplace.
Posted by: mld678 | June 23, 2009, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
One option for bringing down the cost of prescription medication would be to allow drug manufacturers to keep patents longer if they agreed to sell their products at a lower cost when the drug first hits the market.
Drug companies argue that they have to sell their products at a high price to make up for the R&D cost. They only have a 7 year window to make cash-in before generics hit the market, so they sell their product at a very high price.
Drug companies should be offered the chance to hold patents longer if they agreed to lower prices.
This would result in more affordable drug costs, and more a more managable cost/profit model for drug manufacturers.
Posted by: aullman | July 4, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm